Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We thank Dr. Paraskevas for his interest in our recent publications [1,2] as regards preoperative statin use and outcomes following cardiac surgery. For the benefit of Dr. Paraskevas, and more importantly, the journal readership, I would like to make the following points. Our first analysis and publication [1] looked at the entire cohort of patients in our database, including patients with stable angina and both valvular and isolated coronary artery diseases. This publication was available online on 6 November 2004. Somewhat perplexed and disappointed with the negative results with regards to any benefit of preoperative statin use on short-term outcomes in this heterogeneous patient population, we pondered whether there may be a subset of patients who may derive benefit from preoperative statin use. In this regard, and as outlined in the Introduction section of the second paper, which was available online on 23 March 2005 [2], we hypothesized that it may be the patients who present specifically with unstable angina who are likely, if any, to gain a benefit. Thus, the patient groups reported and the results of the analyses with respect to statistical parameters are distinctly different in the two papers. By necessity, there is an overlap in the Materials and Methods section with respect to patient selection and the Data Analysis and Statistics section because these methodologies indeed were the same! I take great exception to the claim that ‘most of the Results sections are identical’. Clearly, we have analyzed two very different patient populations in our two manuscripts (reason for which is based on sound biologic rationale) and the logistic regression models and the results with respect to the various ‘odds ratios’ and ‘p values’ are not the same. Because we were interested in the potential benefits of statins with regard to their ‘pleiotropic’ effects, the outcomes of interest analyzed in both studies remained the same. Similarly, there is an overlap in the Discussion section because the rationale for assuming a benefit for statins (and potential explanations for our observed negative results in both studies) does not change. Furthermore, the limitations of both studies are expected to be the same because the statistical methods and analyses applied were similar. Finally, and again by necessity, the Reference section is similar because during the time frame of submitting our manuscripts, no new citations of relevance were found. Contrary to Dr. Paraskevas’ contention, we believe our second manuscript [2], published in this Journal, adds importantly to our initial observations [1] by showing that preoperative statin use is not associated with improved short-term outcomes in a group of patients (unstable angina) who theoretically should gain the most!
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,066 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,025 | 0,064 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,008 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».